Federal Arbitration Act Does Not Provide Basis For Jurisdiction To Review Denial Of Stay

Posted on January 26, 2010 by Michael Rigney

SHERWOOD v. MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION CO. (November 23, 2009)

Bluegrass Marine employs Michael Sherwood as a deckhand on one of its Mississippi River vessels. Sherwood alleged that he was injured during his employment. He brought suit under the Jones Act. Bluegrass sought a stay in favor of arbitration, invoking a clause in Sherwood's employment contract that required all disputes to be arbitrated under the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act. The court denied the stay, concluding that the Federal Arbitration Act (which does not apply to seamen) preempted the Illinois Act. Bluegrass appealed.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Evans and Williams dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court noted that Bluegrass relied on § 16 of the FAA, which authorizes interlocutory review of a refusal to stay an action under § 3 of the FAA. The Court concluded that § 16 could not provide a basis for jurisdiction since the FAA does not apply to seamen and because Bluegrass never sought or was denied a stay under § 3 of the Act. The Court also rejected Bluegrass' reliance on both the collateral order doctrine and § 1292 (as the denial of an injunction) as bases for an appeal. Although the Court denied the appeal, it did express its doubt regarding the correctness of the district court's preemption conclusion.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

A State Court Complaint Need Not Be Dismissed During The Pendency Of A Shipowner's Limitation Of Liability Act Proceeding -- A Stay Is Sufficient

Posted on December 9, 2009 by Michael Rigney

AMERICAN RIVER TRANSPORTATION CO. v. RYAN (August 27, 2009)

Kerrie Vesolowski was a passenger on a motor boat when it collided with a barge. Vesolowski sued American River Transportation Co. to recover for injuries in state court. American filed an action in federal court pursuant to the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act. The Act limits a shipowner's liability to the value of its ship if it can prove that the acts complained of occurred without its privity or knowledge. The Act also requires that any claims brought against the owner “cease” during the pendency of the proceedings. The district court ordered that Vesolowski’s proceedings be stayed. Vesolowski complied. After more than a year, American asked the court to find Vesolowski (and others) in contempt and to impose sanctions. The court granted the motion and required Vesolowski to dismiss her state court action. Vesolowski appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple and Wood reversed and remanded. The Court first clarified its jurisdiction, noting that it has jurisdiction over an order modifying an injunction but lacks jurisdiction over an order interpreting an injunction. The Court concluded that the order modified the earlier injunction because it required that the case be dismissed, rather than merely stayed. Addressing the merits, the Court noted that the order had two possible bases: 1) the Act requires a dismissal rather than a stay, or 2) the Act requires only a stay and the dismissal is a sanction for Vesolowski's actions during the stay. The Court rejected the first basis. The use of the word "cease" in the Act and the Act's provision preserving Vesolowski's right to her state court remedy convinced the Court that the Act only requires a stay. The Court rejected the second basis as well, as it found no grounds for a sanction. The state case remained stayed. Vesolowski's only action was to add additional defendants and theories of liability. American never had to respond in state court. The Court expressed its opinion that the district court did not intend the dismissal order to be a sanction. If it did, however, it was an abuse of discretion.

Tags: , , , , ,